BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Ealing London Borough Council (Local government (Borough council)) [2007] UKICO FS50126388 (16 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2007/FS50126388.html Cite as: [2007] UKICO FS50126388 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
16 May 2007, Local government (Borough council)
The complainant requested information relating to the adoption of executive arrangements under the Local Government Act 2000 (LGA). She specifically requested certain details about the publicity in local newspapers and whether a formal resolution was passed under section 29 of the LGA. The public authority advised that it no longer holds the details of the publicity and that it was considering whether it held information concerning whether a formal resolution was passed under section 29 (3) of the LGA. Although the complainant provided clarification that she required information about a formal resolution under section 29 (1) of the LGA, following internal review, the public authority advised that it had been unable to identify any information concerning whether a formal resolution was passed under section 29 (3) of the LGA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority confirmed that it had passed a formal resolution under section 29 (1) of the LGA and supplied a copy of the relevant minutes. The Commissioner therefore considers that the public authority breached section 1 of the FOIA. He found no evidence to suggest that the requested details of the publicity are still held by the public authority and does not find any breach of section 1 of the FOIA in this regard.
FOI 1: Partly upheld
